Central Information Commission
Mohit Arora vs Niper, Guwahati on 31 January, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
शिकायतसंख्या / Complaint No. CIC/NIPGU/C/2021/628123-UM
शितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NIPGU/A/2021/628124 -UM
Mr.Mohit Arora
....शिकायतकताा/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research
Guwahati - NIPER-G, SilaKatamur - Halugurisuk,
P.O.: Changsari, Dist: Kamrup, Assam. Pin: 781101
.... प्रशतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31.01.2022
Date of Decision : 31.01.2022
Date of RTI application 29.03.2021
CPIO's response 24.05.2021
Date of the First Appeal 03.05.2021
First Appellate Authority's response 18.05.2021
Complaint dated Nil
ORDER
FACTS The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information, as under:-
Page 1 of 3ETC.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any reply of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 18.05.2021 dispose off the First Appeal. The CPIO vide letter dated 24.05.2021, furnished a reply to the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant / Appellant: Present through AC Respondent: Absent The Complainant/Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that, partial information has been furnished to him. Aggrieved by the irregularities of the responses furnished by the Respondent authority, he said that he had sought the copy of attendance sheet of the candidates which was signed by them during the exam. He said the set number of the paper Page 2 of 3 was also handwritten on that sheet by the candidates and further stated that the Respondent could have provided the attendance sheet hiding the signatures of the candidates. He said that there is a possibility that wrong attendance has been shown on record and alleged that the Respondent has misguided him by stating that the copy of note sheet as sought by him on point no 11 is available on the website while the fact is that no such information is available there.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant and on the perusal of record, the Commission observes that the Complainant wanted the information and hence had no objection in his complaint being treated as Second appeal. Therefore the Commission directs the CPIO to re examine the case and furnish a suitable revised reply to the Complainant/Appellant on point no 1,10,11 of the RTI Application in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. The Respondent may redact the names and personal details of the third parties.
The Complaint/Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अशिप्रमाशणत एवं सत्याशपत प्रशत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 शदनांक / Date: 31.01.2022 Page 3 of 3